The concept of Liverpool Labour being pro environment is laughable.
Firstly, judging by the low-brow way they run the city (into the ground) I expect they're too thick to understand anything complicated.
Secondly, it is they who were sending round their favoured contractor of choice out on planning-permission-free 6am Sunday outings to chop down mature trees in the city centre.
Thirdly. Everything else they've ever done or prioritised.
I wonder if they've also thought of claiming the complete absence of street cleansing is to save the environment too.
As for Packham. He doesn't have to live here, does he?
Carl - do us a favour. Just put your commitment to clean the city up on election flyers and leave the Liverpool Labour "councillors" to their "jobs" (curating supposed outrage on social media).
It's entirely possible to believe that the 'no-mow' policy is a good one for the environment/wildlife and to simultaneously point out that a Council not previously known for its green credentials is trying to spin a cut in service as something positive.
It seems to me that the policy is fine but it needs to be managed properly. I have seen stretches of the central reservation of Queens Drive where the central areas have been seeded with wild flowers and only the 1-2 metres nearest the kerb is mowed and the effect looks quite good. However if grassed areas are just left to grow wild without any seeding it just looks a mess.
If we set raw, side-splitting disbelief aside for one moment, play devil's-adminstration advocate, and say this policy isn't about saving money.
This still wouldn't be something for a council that can't even keep the pavement clean to busy themselves with. It's a good job visitors have plenty of reasons to look up, because looking down is grim.
We can say with absolute confidence that even if this was really a deliberate choice, it most definitely will not be managed (at all, let alone properly). So it will only add to the general run downness of it all.
As an aside, did resigning their duties to keep the place tidy feature in their election manifesto?... Or have Liverpool Labour once again just abused their power to impose what no one consented to?
The opening sentence of this piece "an 'explosive' argument" involving someone with the name of Cashman was perhaps a deliberate choice of the author to reflect the present troubled nature of our society?
The concept of Liverpool Labour being pro environment is laughable.
Firstly, judging by the low-brow way they run the city (into the ground) I expect they're too thick to understand anything complicated.
Secondly, it is they who were sending round their favoured contractor of choice out on planning-permission-free 6am Sunday outings to chop down mature trees in the city centre.
Thirdly. Everything else they've ever done or prioritised.
I wonder if they've also thought of claiming the complete absence of street cleansing is to save the environment too.
As for Packham. He doesn't have to live here, does he?
Carl - do us a favour. Just put your commitment to clean the city up on election flyers and leave the Liverpool Labour "councillors" to their "jobs" (curating supposed outrage on social media).
It's entirely possible to believe that the 'no-mow' policy is a good one for the environment/wildlife and to simultaneously point out that a Council not previously known for its green credentials is trying to spin a cut in service as something positive.
It seems to me that the policy is fine but it needs to be managed properly. I have seen stretches of the central reservation of Queens Drive where the central areas have been seeded with wild flowers and only the 1-2 metres nearest the kerb is mowed and the effect looks quite good. However if grassed areas are just left to grow wild without any seeding it just looks a mess.
If we set raw, side-splitting disbelief aside for one moment, play devil's-adminstration advocate, and say this policy isn't about saving money.
This still wouldn't be something for a council that can't even keep the pavement clean to busy themselves with. It's a good job visitors have plenty of reasons to look up, because looking down is grim.
We can say with absolute confidence that even if this was really a deliberate choice, it most definitely will not be managed (at all, let alone properly). So it will only add to the general run downness of it all.
As an aside, did resigning their duties to keep the place tidy feature in their election manifesto?... Or have Liverpool Labour once again just abused their power to impose what no one consented to?
The opening sentence of this piece "an 'explosive' argument" involving someone with the name of Cashman was perhaps a deliberate choice of the author to reflect the present troubled nature of our society?
Hooters Nick earning his crust again, the only time he pulls his snout out of the trough unless it's a photo op